Final.reentry and Employment.pp

8/10/2019 Final.reentry and Employment.pp

1/76

STRATEGIES

INTEGRATED

Supported by With guidance from

Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Job Readiness

REENTRYand

EMPLOYMENT


2/76

INTEGRATED

REENTRYandEMPLOYMENT

Prepared for

The Annie E. Casey Foundation;

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice;

and the U.S. Department of Labor

by

The Council of State Governments Justice Center

LeAnn Duran, Martha Plotkin, Phoebe Potter, Henry Rosen

September 2013

Supported by

and with guidance from

Bureau of Justice AssistanceU.S. Department of Justice

STRATEGIES:Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Job Readiness

The Annie E. Casey Foundation


3/76

The Council of State Governments Justice Center prepared this paper with support from, and in partnershipwith, the Annie E. Casey Foundation under grant number 209.0159 and the Bureau of Justice Assistance(BJA), U.S. Department of Justice under grant number 2010-MU-BX-K084. The U.S. Department of Laborprovided guidance on the content of the paper. The opinions and ndings in this document are those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent the ofcial position or policies of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the U.S.Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Labor, or the members of the Council of State Governments.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation and BJA reserve the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise touse and to authorize others to use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication. The U.S.Department of Labor is authorized to use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication as well.

About the Annie E. Casey Foundation:Founded in 1948, the primary mission of theAnnie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) is to foster public policies, human-service reforms, and

community supports that more effectively meet the needs of todays vulnerable children andfamilies. In pursuit of this goal, the Foundation makes grants that help states, cities, andneighborhoods fashion more innovative, cost-effective responses to these needs. Additionalinformation is available at aecf.org.

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance:The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Ofce ofJustice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, supports law enforcement, courts, corrections,treatment, victim services, technology, and prevention initiatives that strengthen thenations criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership, services, and funding to Americascommunities by emphasizing local control; building relationships in the eld; developingcollaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity building through planning; streamliningthe administration of grants; increasing training and technical assistance; creating accountabilityof projects; encouraging innovation; and ultimately communicating the value of justice effortsto decision makers at every level. Visit bja.govfor more information.

About the Department of Labor: The U.S. Department of Labor is charged withpromoting the best interests of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States.The Department does this by improving working conditions, advancing opportunities forprotable employment, protecting work-related benets and rights, helping employers ndworkers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment,prices, and other national economic measurements. To carry out this mission the Departmentadministers federal labor laws that deal with employment including hourly wage and overtimepay, workers right to safe working conditions, employment discrimination, and unemploymentinsurance. The mission of the Employment and Training Administration, as part of the U.S.Department of Labor, is to contribute to the more efcient functioning of the U.S. labor marketby providing high-quality job training, employment, labor market information, and incomemaintenance services primarily through state and local workforce development systems. For

more information, see dol.gov.

About the CSG Justice Center:The Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSGJustice Center) is a national nonprot organization that serves policymakers at the local, state,and federal levels from all branches of government. It provides practical, nonpartisan adviceand evidence-based, consensus-driven strategies to increase public safety and strengthencommunities. For more about the CSG Justice Center, see csgjusticecenter.org.

Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York, 10005 2013 by the Council of State Governments Justice CenterAll rights reserved.

Cover design by Mina Bellomy. Interior design by Carrie Cook.
http://www.aecf.org/http://www.bja.gov/http://www.dol.gov/http://csgjusticecenter.org/http://csgjusticecenter.org/http://www.dol.gov/http://www.bja.gov/http://www.aecf.org/


4/76

CONTENTS

Preface..... ...................................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................... vii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

The Relationship between Employment and Recidivism ...................................................................... 2

Applying Workforce Development Principles to Individuals with Criminal Histories .............................. 3

The Need for an Integrated Tool......................................................................................................... 6

I. What Works to Reduce Recidivism: Principles for Improving Outcomes among

Unemployed Individuals with Corrections System-Involvement............................................................... 9

The Three Components of the RNR Principles ...................................................................................10 Integration of RNR Principles into the Resource-Allocation and Service-Matching Tool .......................14

II. Proven and Promising Practices for Improving Outcomes for Hard-to-Employ Individuals .....................17

The Needs of Hard-to-Employ Individuals ......................................................................................... 19

Pre-employment Program Interventions: The Importance of Sequencing .......................................... 20

Employment Program Components to Improve Work Outcomes (What to Do) ................................... 21

Goal 1: Promote Job ReadinessProgram Components ............................................................ 23

Goal 2: Find and Retain EmploymentProgram Components.................................................... 26

Integration of Employment Program Components into the Resource-Allocation

and Service-Matching Tool ........................................................................................................ 29

Employment Service-Delivery Principles to Reduce Recidivism (How to Do It) ................................... 30

Integration of Service-Delivery Principles into the Resource-Allocation

and Service-Matching Tool ........................................................................................................ 35

III. The Resource-Allocation and Service-Matching Tool:

An Integrated Approach to Reducing Recidivism and Improving Employment Outcomes...................... 37

An Explanation of the Tool ............................................................................................................... 38

How Policymakers, System Administrators, and Practitioners

Can Use the Resource-Allocation and Service-Matching Tool ............................................................ 39

Step 1: Assess Risk and Needs .................................................................................................40

Step 2: Assess Job Readiness ....................................................................................................41

Step 3: Deliver Targeted Services .............................................................................................. 42

Groups 3 and 4: The Higher-Risk Groups ................................................................................... 43

Groups 1 and 2: The Lower-Risk Groups .................................................................................... 52

Conclusion................................................................................................................................................ 57

Notes......................................................................................................................................................... 61


5/76


6/76

v

PREFACE

THIS WHITE PAPERis written for policymakers and practitioners engaged in the corrections and workforce

development elds who recognize the need for the two systems to collaborate more closely to improve

public safety and employment outcomes for people who have been incarcerated or are on probation

or parole. It promotes close collaborations with reentry service providers and provides guidance on

prioritizing scarce resources to more effectively reduce rates of reincarceration and joblessness. The paper

also outlines principles that should drive both supervision and service decisionsdecisions that can help

ensure that front-line personnels efforts are having the greatest positive effect.

Employment providers are already serving large numbers of individuals released from correctional

facilities or who are required to nd jobs as conditions of their probation or parole. Yet the corrections,

reentry, and workforce development elds have lacked an integrated tool that draws on the best thinking

about reducing recidivism and improving job placement and retention to guide correctional supervision

and the provision of community-based services.

To address this gap, this white paper presents a tool that draws on evidence-based criminal justice

practices and promising strategies for connecting hard-to-employ people to work. It calls for program

design and practices to be tailored for adults with criminal histories based on their levels of risk for future

criminal activity.

Some people question why limited resources should be focused on employing men and women who have

been in prison, jail, or are on probation or parole when unemployment rates remain high across the nation forlaw-abiding individuals. With mounting research, it is clear there are signicant benets for our communities

in working with this population. Successful reintegration into the workforce can make neighborhoods and

families safer and more stable. Linking individuals who have been involved with the corrections system to

jobs and helping them succeed can reduce the staggering costs to taxpayers for reincarceration and increases

contributions to the tax base for community services. If releasees and supervisees are working, their time

is being spent in constructive ways and they are then less likely to engage in crime and disorder in their

neighborhoods. They also are more likely to develop prosocial relationships when their time is structured

with work and they are able to help care and provide for their families.

Employment is a point at which the goals of the criminal justice, workforce development, family services,

health and human services, and social services systems can converge. With budget cuts to all these

systems, resources must be focused on the right individuals (i.e., people who would benet the most

from interventions), using the right strategies that are delivered at the right time. Improved outcomes for

individuals returning to their communities, for their families, and for each systems investments can be

realized by better coordinating the correctional supervision, treatment, supports, and other services being

delivered at that point of intersection to individuals who have been incarcerated or are on probation or

parole. This white paper is meant to facilitate discussions across systems by introducing a tool that can

help put such a framework for coordination in place.

PREFACE


7/76

vi INTEGRATED REENTRY AND EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES


8/76

viiACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

THIS PAPERis the result of a collaborative effort involving experts on reentry and recidivism reduction,

workforce development and labor, and social policy research. It draws on an extensive review of the

literature and related research, observations of programs in the eld, feedback from national experts,

several multidisciplinary forums and advisory group discussions, and a rigorous review process.

Although the individuals involved in every aspect of the project are too numerous to thank, the

authors hope they see their efforts reected in th is paper.

This project was built on the strong foundational work done by CSG Justice Center Director Michael

Thompson and Center for Employment Opportunities Chief Execut ive Ofcer and Executive Director

Mindy Tarlow for the Reentry Employment Services Matrix, as well as the work conducted by then-Public/

Private Venture Senior Vice President of Program Effectiveness Sheila Maguire on Supporting Second

Chances: Employment Strategies for Reentry Programs.They have al l provided much-appreciated guidance

and ti reless support for this effort. Dr. Harry Holzer, Professor at the Georgetown Public Policy

Institute, also helped the team navigate the employment research and think through difcult issues.

Dr. Ed Latessa, too, generously gave his time and expertise in untangling the relationship between

recidivism-reduction strategies and employment.

Special thanks also is due to John Padilla, Senior Program Associate at the Annie E. Casey

Foundation; Ruby Qazilbash, Associate Deputy Director at the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S.

Department of Justice; Gary Dennis, Ph.D., Senior Policy Advisor for Corrections at the Bureau ofJustice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice; and Thurston Bryant, Pol icy Advisor at the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. This project would not have been possible without

their leadership. Amy Solomon, Senior Advisor at the Off ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department

of Justice also provided unflagging support and valuable feedback while making sure critica l voices

were always heard. Jacqu i Freeman, Unit Chief for the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO),

Division of Youth Services, U.S. Department of Labor, shared her expert ise and experience on both

content and outreach to ensure the white paper complemented the goals of the Federal Interagency

Reentry Council.

A group of expert advisors gave generously of their t ime and expertiseproviding insights and

resources that were truly invaluableand they deserve tremendous thanks for all their work:*

*All t itles reect the positions individuals held at the time of their project involvement unless otherwise indicated.


9/76

viii INTEGRATED REENTRY AND EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES

The authors also thank the many in-house experts at the CSG Justice Center who engaged in lively

debates and offered critical perspectives that made the publication a stronger and more useful

document for the corrections, employment, and reentry elds. Special thanks go to Fred Osher, M.D.,

Director of Health Systems and Services Policy, and David DAmora, M.S., Director of National

Initiatives, for their continuous support and willingness to answer countless questions, and toChristopher Boland and Karen Watts for their editorial counsel.

Dan Bloom,Director,

Health and Barriers to Employment Policy Area,

MDRC, NY

Earl Buford,President and Chief Executive

Ofcer, Wisconsin Regional Training

Partnership, WI

Richard Greenwald,Executive Director

and Assistant to the Mayor for Youth Violence

Prevention, City of Philadelphia

Chara Cooper Haas Violence Prevention Fellow,

Stoneleigh Foundation, PA*

Stefan LoBuglio,Chief,

Montgomery County Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation, MD

Angela Moore,Ph.D., Division Director,

Justice Systems Research, National Institute of

Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, DC

Eileen Pederson,Manpower Analyst,

Ofce of Policy Development and Research,

Employment and Training Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, DC

Cindy Redcross,Senior Associate,

Health and Barriers to Employment Policy Area,

MDRC, NY

Amy Rynell,Director,

Social IMPACT Research Center, Heartland

All iance, IL

Eric Seleznow,Deputy Assistant Secretary,

U.S. Department of Labors Employment and

Training Administration, DC

Mindy Tarlow,Chief Executive Ofcer and

Executive Director,

Center for Employment Opportunities, NY

Jen Troke,Chief, Division of Youth Services,

Ofce of Workforce Investment, U.S.

Department of Labor, DC

Diane Williams,President and CEO,

Safer Foundation, IL

*At the t ime of the project, Richard Greenwald was a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institutes Center for Civic Innovation, NY.At the t ime of the project, Eric Seleznow was State Policy Director at National Skills Coalition, DC.


10/76


11/76

2 INTEGRATED REENTRY AND EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES

The Relationship between Employment and Recidivism

Employment can make a strong contribution to recidivism-reduction efforts because it refocuses

individuals time and efforts on prosocial activities,*making them less likely to engage in riskier behaviorsand to associate with people who do. Having a job also enables individuals to contribute income to their

families, which can generate more personal support, stronger positive relationships, enhanced self-esteem,

and improved mental health.3For these reasons, employment is often seen as a gateway to becoming

and remaining a law-abiding and contributing member

of a community. Employment also has important societal

benets, including reduced strain on social service resources,

contributions to the tax base, and safer, more stable communities.

Although practical experience suggests that holding a job

plays an important role in reducing recidivism, research on the

link between employment and reductions in reoffending hasrevealed a complicated relationship. There is some evidence

that people released from prison and jail that hold jobs in

the community are less likely to recidivate, especially when

earnings are above minimum wage.5Research also shows

that job stability over an extended period of time can reduce

the likelihood that an individual will reoffend.6However,

research does not support the proposition that simply placing

an individual in a job is a silver bullet for reducing criminal

behaviors. All told, there are few studies that demonstrate a

direct causal relationship between current employment servicepractices and recidivism rates.7

What various studies do suggest is that to reduce criminal

behaviors and recidivism, employment service providers and

corrections professionals must address individuals antisocial attitudes and beliefs associated with crime,

many of which also impact an individuals ability to succeed in the workplace.8In order for employment

service providers to help lower individuals risk of recidivism, individuals must be motivated to change

their behavior (this is especially true of young males).9Their decision to live more prosocial lifestyles is

integral to the success of employment and other programs. This nding is consistent with research that

suggests older individuals (who are already on a trajectory toward desistance from crime) typically benet

more from employment programs than less motivated individuals.10

MAKING COMMUNITIES SAFERAND MORE STABLE

As the reentr y movement has advanced over

the last decade, there has been increasing

awareness that helping individuals avoid

reoffending can increase their success

in reclaiming their lives and can improve

neighborhoods and communities. Thisis

particularly true for neighborhoods that typically

receive a disproportionate number of individuals

returning from incarceration, and which

also tend to lack social service resources.

Research confirms that these vulnerable areas

already face high gang activity, poverty, and

unemployment.4This high unemployment

especially among those returning from

incarcerationcontributes to the destabilizing

impact on communities and families.

*Prosocial activities are those that reect individuals thinking about the welfare of others and/or the benet to the community. In thecontext of this paper, they are chiey related to law-abiding behaviors and positive social relationships.For instance, a data analysis project in Phoenix, Arizona, revealed one neighborhood that represented 1 percent of the states population,but was home to 6.5 percent of the states prison population. For information on how Arizona addressed its vulnerable neighborhoods andmade more effective use of its public safety dollars, see Reducing Crime and Generating Savings: Options for Arizona Policymakers(New York: CSG

Justice Center, February 2008), available at csgjusticecenter.org/jr/arizona/publications/reducing-crime-and-generating-savings-options-for-arizona-policymakers.
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_10/communities.Thishttp://www.csgjusticecenter.org/jr/arizona/publications/reducing-crime-and-generating-savings-options-for-arizona-policymakershttp://www.csgjusticecenter.org/jr/arizona/publications/reducing-crime-and-generating-savings-options-for-arizona-policymakershttp://www.csgjusticecenter.org/jr/arizona/publications/reducing-crime-and-generating-savings-options-for-arizona-policymakershttp://www.csgjusticecenter.org/jr/arizona/publications/reducing-crime-and-generating-savings-options-for-arizona-policymakershttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_10/communities.This


12/76

3

Emerging research does reveal that some

employment-focused reentry programs can reduce

criminal behaviors by effectively incorporating

activities and services that address criminogenicrisks and needsthat is, individuals characteristics

that have been linked to the likelihood of

reincarceration, such as substance abuse and

antisocial peers and attitudes. These ndings are

consistent with the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR)

principles detailed in Section I of this paper, which

are used by growing numbers of corrections and

reentry practitioners to reduce recidivism. In short,

these principles guide practitioners and system

administrators on how to use objective assessmenttools to identify and serve individuals who are at

a higher risk of committing a future crime.*They

then help to direct needed services and supervision

resources to these higher-risk individuals in ways that

can achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism.

Applying Workforce Development Principles to Individuals with Criminal Histories

Just as advances in the reentry eld and greater recognition and adherence to the RNR principles have

helped curb recidivism rates,12the workforce development and labor eld has made signicant strides in the

design of strategies that can improve employability. Following passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), workforce development practitioners stepped up

efforts to help hard-to-employ individuals (e.g., individuals with little work experience, low educational

attainment, or reliance on government support programs) succeed through tailored programs, practices,

INTRODUCTION

LIMITATIONS ON RESEARCH REGARDINGEMPLOYMENT AND RECIDIVISM

There are several reasons why there is relatively limited

evidence on whether employment-focused reentry

programs reduce recidivism. Many programs simply

focus on connect ing individuals with employment, and of

those programs that do address individuals likelihood of

recidivism, very few have been evaluated by experimental

research that adequately considers important factors such

as the part icipants motivation to change and attitudes

about work and crime.11When experimental evaluations

have been conducted, they tend to focus on outcomes

for the whole program instead of the ef for ts distinct

components (such as coordinated case management,

job-skil ls t raining, interview and resume preparat ion,

and others). As a result, it is difficult to determine which

specific practices are most effective.

SCOPE OF THE POPULATION ADDRESSED BY THIS PAPER

This white paper focuses primarily on adults being released from prison or jail, probationers, and parolees who lack

employment. For the purposes of this paper, the term individuals with criminal histories is sometimes used as shorthand

to describe this population. Although this paper recognizes the valuable contributions of behind-the-bars programming, therecommended approaches primarily target the period of transition from correctional facilities to the community, and the days

and months following release and/or at the start of community supervision. This focus also does not negate the need for

long-term, ongoing services for these individuals, particularly as their circumstances change.

*Most risk-assessment instruments go beyond determin ing risks for committing a new cr ime and include the risks associated withtechnical violations of probation or parole that can lead to reincarceration (recidivism measures). This is part icularly important for th ispopulation given that conditions of correctional supervision and release typically require i ndividuals to seek employment and repay court-ordered fees and nes. (However, few risk tools determine whether the individuals risks are specically related to technical violations

versus the commission of a new crime.) There are also special ized risk-assessment tools that have been developed to determine specicareas of risk, such as violent behavior and sexual offenses. These risk tools may be used in addition to assessing the r isk of reincarceration,but no risk tool exists that can predict the behavior of a specic individual.


13/76

4

and strategies. These approaches have included welfare-to-work and supportive employment programs,

among many others.

On the heels of the enactment of PRWORA, federal, state, and local policymakers and employmentservice providers continued to explore strategies to promote growth in the workforce eld and better

engage business leaders. To this end, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) was passed to tailor

the efforts of the public workforce system to employers needs. WIA was also designed to provide

Americans with the training, tools, and support they need to start and advance their careers. It has

supported community One-Stop Career Centers*across the nation that often serve as the engine for

the workforce development eld by helping to provide the majority of employment-related services in

many jurisdictions.

People with criminal histories are often some of the most difcult to place in jobs. 13Because millions

of adults in the nation have a history of involvement with the criminal justice system, they make up

a considerable portion of the hard-to-employ population that is increasingly being seen by workforcedevelopment practitioners. Researchers have found that, like other hard-to-employ individuals, people

who have been incarcerated have signicant educational decits. Only about half have earned a high

school degree or equivalent and surveys conrm that more than half were previously red from a

INTEGRATED REENTRY AND EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES

HARD-TO-EMPLOY INDIVIDUALS WITH CRIMINAL HISTORIES: A SUPPLY-AND-DEMAND MODEL

Some experts frame the employment issue for individuals with criminal histories in an economic supply-and-demand context.

Supply-side barriers include this populations characteristics that make them difcult to connect to long-term legitimate work:

a tendency to have more antisocial thinking and a greater likelihood of behavioral health disorders, unstable housing, and other

complex problems.14

Additionally, many of these individuals may lack the skills and professional attributes that employers seek.

Employers also may not create sufcient demand for employees with criminal histories because business owners and agency leaders

are less likely to be interested in hiring from this population for two sets of reasons: those related to personal characteristics and those

related to criminal history status.15Some employers concerned about liability for employees actions also may consider a criminal

record as a proxy for lack of integrity.16A survey of employers found that only about 40 percent were willing to consider lling their most

recent job vacancy with someone who has recently returned to the community following incarceration.17Furthermore, as of 2010, an

estimated 92 percent of all large employers conducted criminal background checks as part of the application process for some or all job

candidates, illustrating the extent to which employers are concerned with an applicants criminal record.18

On April 25, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its guidance on the use of criminal background

checks for employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, clarifying that blanket exclusions for individuals with criminal

records violate Title VII because of its disparate racial impact. The guidance urges employers to consider the nature of the crime,

the time elapsed, and the nature of the job in hiring decisions. (See eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-25-12.cfm.)

*One-Stop Career Centers refer to the agencies funded through WIA to provide workforce development and employment services.Although these workforce development centers are colloquially referred to as one-stops, the Department of Labor has begun using theterm American Job Centers to describe both web-based and brick-and-mortar career and workforce resources, and the term One-StopCareer Center will only refer to physical resource facilities. See sidebar on page 22.For more information on what the EEOCs updated enforcement guidance means for employers use of arrest and conviction records,see the National Reentry Resource Center announcement at csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/announcements/eeoc-updates-policy-on-criminal-background-checks.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-25-12.cfmhttp://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/announcements/eeoc-updates-policy-on-criminal-background-checks/http://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/announcements/eeoc-updates-policy-on-criminal-background-checks/http://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/announcements/eeoc-updates-policy-on-criminal-background-checks/http://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/announcements/eeoc-updates-policy-on-criminal-background-checks/http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-25-12.cfm


14/76

5

job, and many depended on illegal income prior to incarceration.19Research shows that on average,

incarceration triggers a 19-percent decrease in the number of weeks worked annually, and a 40-percent

reduction in yearly earnings.20These monetary losses should raise deep concerns given that lower wages

are associated with higher rates of criminal activity. 21

Individuals with criminal records also face a number of legal barriers to employment [which

organizations such as the American Bar Association (ABA) have described as one of many collateral

consequences of a criminal conviction]. Many states have a confusing patchwork of restrict ions

that can vary in employer discretion, duration of their application, and in their reach. 22According

to an ongoing ABA review of state policies, there are many barriers for individuals with criminal

records (an estimated 40,000 statutes and regulations),* and a projected 50 percent of those collateral

consequences are job related.23For example, some authorities will not l icense people with felony

(or even non-felony) records for certain professions, such as barbers, truck drivers, and health care

providers. In some states these policies can have tremendous consequences. In Florida a lone, statutory

regulations and limitations targeting people with criminal records affect 40 percent of jobs.24Although

some restrictions are certainly required, such as those related to individuals who work with children,

others appear to be less about safety and more about prolonging the punishment of individuals with

criminal histories.25Many legal aid providers offer low-income individuals with a criminal record

free legal assistance in navigating these complicated barriers and securing professional and other

licenses. Accordingly, these providers can be an important part of any program that seeks to increase

employment opportunities for this population.

Although workforce agency staff are dedicated to helping hard-to-employ people overcome barr iers

to employment and nd work, their services and programs do not always specically focus on people

with criminal histories and have somet imes y ielded mixed results for th is population. Section II of th ispaper provides an overview of the strategies that workforce development and labor professionals use

for hard-to-employ adults that can be applied to individuals with criminal histories, with particular

attention to job readiness.To improve outcomes for this population, it is important that best

practices from the workforce development eld be tailored to the reentry population in ways that

attend to individual levels of job readiness andcriminogenic risk factors.

Given the many employment challenges for this criminal justice population, policymakers and

workforce service providers may well be wondering why they should receive so much attention for

services when there are signicant obstacles for individuals who have never broken the law and who

are looking for work. The reentry population, admittedly, may include large numbers of individuals

INTRODUCTION

*At the time of publication, the policies of 22 states have been comprehensively reviewed by the American Bar Association and are availablein an interactive, state-by-state compilation of collateral consequences. For more information on this project as more states are reviewed,please see abacollateralconsequences.org. Additional information on the collateral consequences of having a criminal record imposed byfederal laws and regulations can be found in Internal Exile: Collateral Consequences of Conviction in Federal Laws and Regulations,published by the American Bar Association in 2009, at pdsdc.org/resources/publication/collateral%20consequences%20of%20convic-tion%20in%20federal%20laws%20and%20regulations.pdf.Job readiness is a determination based on personal characterist ics that make an individua l more or less competit ive in the labor market.

These characteristics generally include personal and family challenges, education and skil l decits, and other needs that may impai rindividuals ability to atta in and retain employment. For more on job readiness and other key employment terms see the denit ions on page 18.
http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/http://www.pdsdc.org/resources/publication/collateral%20consequences%20of%20conviction%20in%20federal%20laws%20and%20regulations.pdfhttp://www.pdsdc.org/resources/publication/collateral%20consequences%20of%20conviction%20in%20federal%20laws%20and%20regulations.pdfhttp://www.pdsdc.org/resources/publication/collateral%20consequences%20of%20conviction%20in%20federal%20laws%20and%20regulations.pdfhttp://www.pdsdc.org/resources/publication/collateral%20consequences%20of%20conviction%20in%20federal%20laws%20and%20regulations.pdfhttp://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/


15/76

6

who are more difcult to employ than individuals without a criminal history. As the preface to this

paper suggests, the answer is simply that

individuals with criminal histories are already being seen by employment serviceproviders in large numbers;

like any diverse population, tailored approaches could achieve better resultsin this

case, both improved safety and employment goals;

employment can have a stabilizing effect on families and vulnerable neighborhoods

in the longer term; and

employment programs that focus on recidivism reduction wil l ultimately lead to

better labor market outcomes, as incarceration has been shown to reduce an individuals

employment prospects and upward economic mobility over the long run. 26

With scarce resources, workforce service providers need to know that by focusing on the right people withcriminal records, at the right time, and with the right interventions, they can help reduce the chance that

individuals will reoffend and improve the likelihood that individuals will successfully connect to the workforce.

The Need for an Integrated Tool

Policymakers and practitioners in corrections, reentry, and workforce development are all struggling

to make the most effective use of their limited resources. Individuals returning from prison, jail, or

beginning community supervision have varied types and levels of employment needs, which can be

as intensive as immediate, subsidized employment along with a constellation of support services.

With the enormous number of individuals returning from prisons and jai ls or beginning community

supervision, state and local government ofcials and service providers need a common frameworkto think about which individuals with criminal histories should be prioritized for the most intensive

programming slots that require considerable resources, and which individuals will be successful with

services that are less resource intensive. It is critical to make the greatest investments in the individuals

that will benet most from recidivism-reduction strategies and employment services, particularly as

jurisdictions struggle with unrelenting scal pressures.

Although there is broad acceptance that community-based employment service professionals are already

serving people with criminal histories in large numbers, there has not been a framework or tool for

linking the science of reducing risk for criminal activity with the promising strategies for improving

outcomes for hard-to-employ populations. And while both corrections and employment personnel have

long recognized the need to coordinate efforts to increase successes among their shared population,

working through the practical, cross-systems issues in order to integrate responses can be challenging.

Experts, researchers, and practitioners from both elds have made it clear that there is a need for easy-

to-follow guidance for administrators and service providers on making evidence-based programming,

supervision, and service decisions. This white paper is intended to help ll that gap.

With support from the U.S. Justice Departments Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Annie E. Casey

Foundation, and with guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor, the CSG Justice Center worked in



16/76

7

*After nearly 35 years, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) has ceased operations. Their involvement and research prior to the July 2012 closingplayed a key role in the development of this white paper. P/PV documents, including their research review of employment services forthe hard to employ Supporting Second Chances: Employment Strategies for Reentry Programs, are hosted by the Foundation CentersPubHub, accessible at issuelab.org/resource/supporting_second_chances_employment_strategies_for_reentry_programs.

partnership with Public/Private Ventures*and the Center for Employment Opportunities to develop a

tool to help corrections and workforce development professionals focus their resources on positioning

individuals with criminal histories to succeed in the workforce and avoid reincarceration. The challenge is

that strategies from each eld cannot simply be added together without thought as to how they may affect

one another. This white paper is meant to prompt readers to think about how existing strategies can be

combined in effective ways and how new and creative strategies inspired by the tool can be tested.

THIS PAPER IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS:

I. What works to reduce recidivism: risk/need principles that employment

professionals can use to improve outcomes for individuals who have been

involved in the corrections system

II. Proven and promising practices for improving outcomes for hard-to-employindividuals, including adults with criminal records

III. The resource-allocation and service-matching tool: an integrated approach

to improving reentry and employment outcomes for individuals released from

prison or jail, or who are beginning community supervision

Section Iprovides an overview of the principles that help guide corrections practitioners and

administrators as they work to reduce individuals likelihood of reincarceration and promote

successful reentry. Similarly, Section IIprovides an overview of promising practices in the workforce

development eld. It provides a summary of relevant workforce strategies and examines some ofthe overlap with correct ions and reentry principles. These sections help establish a foundation for

productive discussions on improving outcomes for the corrections and workforce development

systems shared population.

The resource-allocation and service-matching tool that is featured in Section IIIrepresents a

signicant shift in how state and local governments typically address recidivism and job-readiness

issues. By integrating the research-driven principles from the criminal justice and employment elds,

it encourages collaborations through better communications and a common vocabulary, and helps

identify the individuals that would benet most from integrated recidivism-reduction interventions and

employment-related services.

Although this paper sets out integrated responses that require resources and collaborat ive partnerships

that may not be readily available in many jurisdictions, it can and should spark creative problem

solving about how to align existing resources with priority initiatives and to pool capacity in innovative

ways. It can also help identify gaps and areas that can be the focus of resource development or

expansion as conditions in a jurisdiction permit.

INTRODUCTION
http://www.issuelab.org/resource/supporting_second_chances_employment_strategies_for_reentry_programshttp://www.issuelab.org/resource/supporting_second_chances_employment_strategies_for_reentry_programs


17/76

8 INTEGRATED REENTRY AND EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES


18/76

9I. WHAT WORKS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

I. WHAT WORKS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM:

Principles for improving outcomes among unemployedindividuals with corrections system-involvement

BEFORE DISCUSSING PROMISING STRATEGIESfor connecting individuals with criminal histories to

jobs, it is important to understand their needs that are associated with criminal behaviors and what

research reveals about how to stop the cycle of reoffending and reincarceration. Just as the workforce

development and labor eld has been working to nd effective approaches to achieve employment goals,

criminal justice professionals have tested and researched how to realize public safety and reentry goals.

It is critical that there be a common understanding between these systems of each others evidence-

driven approaches in order for collaborative efforts to succeed in reducing recidivism while improving

employment outcomes for individuals that have been incarcerated or are on community supervision.

Decades of experience and research have led

corrections professionals to develop a set of guiding

principles that, when implemented correctly, can

help reduce reoffending and violations of probation

and parole conditions (recidivism measures). These

Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) principles help

policymakers, administrators, and practitioners

determine how to allocate resources, deliverservices, and place the right people into the right

interventions in order to have the greatest impact on

public safety and recidivism.

A vast amount of research has been conducted on the

effectiveness of RNR principles in a diverse range of

settings (e.g., jails, prisons, probation, and parole). These

principles have been tested and evaluated through

randomized control trials and quasi-experimental

design studies, as well as through meta-analyses.

This body of research decisively indicates that properimplementation of the RNR principles can reduce the

risk of recidivism.27These principles have increasingly

been accepted by criminal justice professionals.

Workforce and labor professionals may feel the

RNR principles resonate on a practical level.

*See footnote on page 3 regarding how assessment instruments also often address technical violations, and how more specialized toolsexamine the likelihood of violence or the commission of sexual offenses.Although a person may have many needs, not all of them are associated with risk of recidivism. For example, a persons health condition orlack of stable housing can represent important needs, but research has not linked them to the likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS USED BYCORRECTIONS PROFESSIONALS

Criminogenic Risk (Risk):The likelihood that an

individual will engage in new criminal activity. In this

context, risk does not refer to the seriousness of a

crime that a person may commit in the future. Instead,

standard assessments generally provide informationsimply on the likelihood that a person will reoffend.*

Criminogenic Needs (Needs):The characteristics

(such as antisocial attitudes, beliefs, and thinking

patterns) or circumstances (such as a persons

friends or family dynamics) that research has shown

are associated with criminal behavior, but which a

person can change.

Risk/Needs Assessment:A comprehensive

examination and evaluation of both dynamic

(changeable) and static (historical and/or

demographic) criminogenic factors that predict

risk of recidivism. Results can be used to guide

decisions about services, placements, supervision,

and sentencing in some cases.


19/76

10

In some fundamental ways, the RNR principles resemble the approach that workforce development

practitioners and American Job Centers (formerly referred to as One-Stop Career Centers), in particular,

use with their clients in triaging resources. The RNR principles emphasize the importance of using risk/

needs assessments to understand an individuals distinct characteristics, skills, and problems, and then

using these assessment ndings to identify the appropriate levels of supervision, services, and treatment.

Matching individuals to the most effective combination of services and corrections supervision is

dependent on trained personnels use of reliable, validated screening and assessment tools. These tools

can help identify individuals risks and needs associated with future criminal activity (criminogenic

risks and needs). As discussed more fully below, assessment tools are also used to identify individuals

challenges that, if unaddressed, can make it difcult for them to benet from treatments and

interventions. Many corrections agencies use assessment instruments to determine both placement and

programming decisions for individuals within a facility based on their risks and needs.*The information

can also be used to determine supervision levels for adults on probation and parole. Finally, applying the

RNR principles can guide decisions on reentry plans and referrals to services that draw on the resources

of multiple systems, such as substance abuse and employment programs.

A basic understanding of the RNR principles and what information is collected by corrections risk/needs

assessment instruments can help workforce and labor service providers decide how to

add value to their work through formal partnerships;

use risk/needs information (when appropriate) to prioritize their own resources;

work with other reentry providers to address needs related to job readiness;

help with service matching; and

support employment professionals efforts to keep clients out of the criminal justice

system, given the signicant negative impacts that reincarceration has on individuals

future employability and their earnings prospects.28

Detailed below are the core components of RNR and how adherence to those principles helps reduce recidivism

The Three Components of the RNR Principles

1. Risk Principle:Match the intensity of individuals interventions to their levels of risk for criminal activity.

Research shows that prioritizing supervision and services for individuals at moderate or higher risk of

committing a future crime can lead to a signicant reduction in recidivism among this group. Conversely,

intensive interventions for individuals who are at a low risk of recidivism may actually be harmful and


*In both correct ions facilities and in the community, corrections professionals typically use assessment instruments to determine ifindividuals fall within the categories of low, medium, or high risk. Jurisdictions employ different assessment tools, and also use differentcut-off scores to distinguish among the risk groups. Regardless of how these groups are dened, it is important that the higher r iskgroupsthe priority groupsare t ruly at a signicant ly greater risk of recidivism.Most corrections and criminal justice agencies use, or have access to, risk-assessment tools and scores. Agencies may be able to share thisinformation with service providers (contingent on appropriate sharing protocols and compliance with privacy mandates) to help achieve recidivism-reduction goals. If a local corrections partner does not use risk assessments or cannot provide this information, workforce agencies should notnecessarily purchase these costly tools or expend resources on training staff in their use. Instead, they should initiate conversations withtheir criminal justice partners on how these tools can be acquired and implemented, and how the resulting relevant information can be shared.


20/76


21/76

12

2. Need Principle:Target criminogenic needsfactors that contribute to the likelihood of new

criminal activity.

The need principle directs that treatment and case management should prioritize the core criminogenicneeds that can be positively impacted through services, supervision, and supports. Research indicates

that the greater the number of criminogenic needs addressed through interventions, the greater impact

the interventions will have on lowering the likelihood of recidivism. 31There is also evidence that the

number of treatment hours an individual receives inuences the effectiveness of the intervention.

Higher-risk individuals require more program hours than lower-risk individuals, and providing too many

treatment hours to lower-risk individuals can have adverse effects.32Structuring higher-risk individuals

time in programming helps minimize exposure to antisocial inuences, whereas it can interrupt the very

kinds of prosocial activities (including work and family time) that qualify individuals as lower risk.

Example: A program likely to reduce recidivism will use interventions designed to

change antisocial thinking, increase problem-solving skills, model positive interactions

and relationships, and promote recovery from addiction in the context of other reentry

goals (the needs related to the risk factors in figure 1 on page 11). These kinds of

interventions typically employ cognitive behavioral strategies. Individuals will also

have noncriminogenic needs such as lack of personal identification, transportation,

or clothing. Although these needs are critical, in order to reduce recidivism, the need

principle stresses the importance of addressing individuals problems that research

has most closely associated with criminal activity.

3. Responsivity Principle:Account for an individuals abilities and learning styles when

designing treatment interventions.33

The responsivity principle highlights the importance of reducing barriers to learning by addressing

learning styles, reading abilities, and motivation when designing supervision and service strategies.34

There are two types of responsivity: general and specic, which have implicat ions at the program

and individual levels. The general responsivity principle refers to the need for interventions that help

individuals address criminogenic risk factors such as antisocial thinking. Research shows that social

learning approaches and cognitive behavioral therapies are generally effective in meeting a range of

these needs, regardless of the type of crime committed. Prosocial modeling and skills development,

teaching problem-solving skills, and using more positive reinforcement than negative have all been

shown to be effective and reect this approach.35

Specic responsivity refers to the principle that d istinct personal needs may need to be addressed

in order to prepare an individual for receiving interventions that can reduce reoffending behaviors.

Specic responsivity relates to the ne-tuning of services or interventions, such as modifying a

cognitive behavioral intervention to account for a cognitive impairment associated with some mental

illnesses. It also accounts for the individuals strengths, personality, learning style and capacity,

motivation, cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender characteristics, as well as behavioral health needs.

Abiding by the responsivity principle can help ensure that interventions are accessible and tailored to

individuals in ways that can motivate and prepare them for programming.



22/76

13I. WHAT WORKS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

RNR IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES: ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SELECTION AND USE

Although the RNR pr inciples have been increasingly embraced and effectively applied in many jurisdictions across the

nation, there are ongoing implementation challenges. In practice, many agencies struggle with nding and using the

best screening and assessment instruments for their particular population. There are many dif ferent screening and

assessment instruments within the corrections eld*each with its own strengths and weaknesses and ranging from

informal questionnaires to scientically validated tools for use with a particular group o f people. Creating an instrument

for a specic population that can be validated is an expensive and complicated process, yet tailoring an existing tool to

distinct agency needs can diminish its validity.Agencies may also lack trained personnel to administer the instruments

and interpret the results, or may lack direction on how to best use those results to guide decisions about placement

or programming in correctional facilities and supervision levels in the community. Agency policies may not align with

RNR principles: For example, agency policies may encourage placing individuals into education, skills development, or

other programming related to job readiness while incarcerated, but these policies may not prioritize enrolling individuals

at higher risk for criminal behavior. Instead, these programs may operate under rst come, rst served policies. Itcan be particularly difcult to enroll the right people into the right program because higher-risk individuals may refuse

participation or may be excluded if slots are lled by motivated individuals at lower risk.

Community supervision agencies experience many of the same challenges with select ing and implementing assessment

tools as well as overseeing programming.In addition, services that community supervision ofcers may think are

important for individuals under their supervision may not mesh with what local service providers want to prioritize. Some

probation and parole agency policies may also use the same supervision strategies for low-risk individuals that they use

for high-risk individuals. For example, they may require numerous in-person check-ins at an out-of-the-way ofce for all

supervisees. (In contrast, an increasing number of probation and parole agencies are insti tuting other t ypes of monitoring

for lower-risk individuals, such as kiosk check-ins, that may facili tate employment and enhance reintegration.)

*See , for example, Roger H. Peters, Marla G. Bartoi, and Pattie B. Sherman, Screening and Assessment of Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System(Delmar: CMHS National GAINS Center, 2008).For more information on validating an instrument, refer to Stephen D. Gottfredson and Laura J. Moriarty, Statistic Risk Assessment: OldProblems and New Applications, Crime and Delinquency52, no.1 (2006): 178200; Christopher Baird,A Question of Evidence: A Critique of Risk

Assessment Models Used in the Justice System: Special Report (2009)(Madison: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2009); Edward J. Latessa, etal., Creation and Validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System Final Report(Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, Center forCriminal Justice Research, July 2009).In some cases, for example, some lower-risk inmates will take limited substance abuse treatment slots if part icipation is tied to goodtime credits associated with early release. Research-driven strategies to change high-risk individuals motivation levels may not beundertaken if slots are lled by will ing lower-risk inmates.

Sometimes courts wi ll order individuals to enroll in treatment programs as a condition of probation without fully considering their risklevels/needs and appropriateness of the program.


23/76

14

Example:Barriers to learning and unresponsiveness to interventions can be

associated with such issues as mental illness, low motivation, cognitive deficits,

and poor physical health. Corrections officials and service providers need to

consider addressing individuals conditions that can interfere with service provision.

Of particular note is the overlap in responsivity factors addressed by corrections

professionals with the job-readiness factors that employment and reentry

practitioners need to consider for job placement, retention, and advancement.

Integration of RNR Principles into the Resource-Allocation and Service-Matching Tool

Research has demonstrated that reducing recidivism requires that scarce corrections programming,

treatment, and supervision resources be prioritized for people at higher risk for criminal activity

(determined by the risk-factors score on a validated assessment tool).36The RNR principles should

be integrated into any programs that serve large numbers of individuals with criminal histories

including employment programs. Application of the risk principle can help service providers and

administrators triage their more expensive and intensive services and decide how to allocate other

resources. Further, prioritizing by risk allows correctional supervisors to free up resources that had

been devoted to managing and supervising low-risk individuals who receive unneeded services to

refocus those resources where they will have greater impact. Accordingly, the resource-allocation and

service-matching tool proposed in this paper will rst examine individuals levels of risk. Those at

higher risk of reoffending will be given priority for supervision and services to increase their chances

for safe reentry and successful employment.


SERVICES COMMONLY USED TO REDUCE THE RISK OF RECIDIVISM

The kinds of services that research has shown are most likely to reduce the risk of recidivism are those that attend to the eight core

criminogenic risk factors discussed in gure 1 on page 11. These services are o ften found (to varying degrees) in mental health

and substance abuse treatment programs, family counseling, or some halfway house and special employment effor ts.

These serviceswhether provided in a community or correctional settingtypically embrace cognitive behavioral interventions

and treatments. Cognitive behavioral interventions designed for the corrections population target individuals thoughts, choices,

and attitudes associated with criminal behavior. They help individuals recognize antisocial behaviors, develop new strategies for

coping with problems, resist antisocial peer pressure, and be mindful of the perspectives and emotions of others.37

Cognitive behavioral interventions and treatments reect principles of social learning that suggest individuals can effectively

acquire attitudes, behaviors, or knowledge through observations and interactions with their peers and others around them.38

Thus, cognitive behavioral interventions can be delivered within classroom settings or treatment settings where providers use

intensive feedback and instruction coupled with role play and rehearsal. Interventions such as motivational interviewing can be

applied during case management meetings. Whether cognitive behavioral interventions are administered in pre- or post-release

settings as stand-alone programs, woven into the broader program design, or used in regular interactions with the corrections

populations, they are strong tools for professionals to use in reducing recidivism.


24/76

15

The labor and workforce development eld is not only concerned with individuals with criminal

histories when they are in the community unsupervised, but also has a vested interest in what services

and strategies are delivered to individuals while they are in correctional facilities or on probation or

parole. Institutional programs that address risk- or responsivity-related needs can be just as importantas education or employment programming in preparing an individual for entering the workforce upon

release. The supervision strategies applied to individuals on probation or parole can impact their ability

to enroll in employment programming or hold a job. Although there is a clear mutual benet for the

corrections and employment elds to be working together, there is often a lack of understanding of

how these benets can be achieved and to what end.

Figure 2 depicts the initial action taken in the application of the resource-allocation and service-

matching tool that emphasizes the need to use validated assessments to objectively determine

individuals levels of risk of criminal behavior.*It is the rst step in matching people with criminal

histories to employment services while reducing their risk of reoffending. These assessments can also

inform supervision policies and non-employment-related service placements (such as mental health

treatment) that may impact the effectiveness of employment interventions.

FIGURE2.GROUPINGINDIVIDUALSBYLIKELIHOODOFCOMMITTINGAFUTURECRIME

Risk/needs information should also inform the type and intensity of employment service responses,

but these decisions require a second assessment that is focused on individuals levels of job readiness

(discussed in the following sect ion). Section II reviews the goals of employment-related services and

details the importance of considering job readiness when working with hard-to-employ individuals. It

reviews a range of employment program components and introduces key principles of effective service

delivery for individuals with criminal histories.

I. WHAT WORKS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

*As discussed in later sections, risk/needs assessments also typically yield information about noncriminogenic needs that may be relevantto job-readiness issues. In addition to the responsivity needs (such as indicators of substance abuse and behavioral health), they also mayindicate needs such as those related to nancial issues (child support and court-ordered debts and fees) or stable housing that may alsoneed to be addressed for successful reentry and employment.

Low or Lower Risk Moderate/High orHigher Risk

This assessment measures individuals risk of reoffending

and related needs, and helps inform supervision policiesand non-employment referrals/program placements that

address criminogenic risk and responsivity needs.

Risk and Needs Assessment

with Objective, Validated Tool


25/76

16

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM SECTION I

1. RNR principles provide evidence-based guidance on who should be prioritized to receive

interventions and help determine what needs those interventions should address in order to reduce

reoffending. For employment providers serving people with criminal histories, the RNR principles

help determine where resources can have the greatest impact not only on improving the likelihood

that individuals can connect to the workforce, but also on increasing public safety by reducing their

chances of future criminal activity.

2. RNR principles promote a cost-effective approach by ensuring that resources are focused on

individuals with criminal histories who need services most, and are not misspent on individuals

with criminal histories who are likely to succeed with little or no interventions (or worse, increase

recidivism by interrupting prosocial activities and exposing low-risk individuals unnecessarily tohigh-risk releasees or probationers).

3. Validated, objective risk/needs assessments are essential for effectively implementing the RNR

principles. To the extent that information from these assessments can be appropriately shared by

corrections with workforce development professionals and other reentry or community-based

service providers, the results can enhance service matching (including for responsivity issues) and

reduce the burden of conducting multiple screenings.

4. For individuals with antisocial thinking, behaviors, personality patterns, and peers, cognitive

behavioral interventions may be needed both to reduce their likelihood of reoffending and to prepare

them for the workplace. Responsivity issues such as learning disabilities and mental, physical, orsubstance use disorders may also need to be addressed before corrections or employment

interventions can be successful.

5. The resource-allocation and service-matching tool detailed in Section III of this paper begins with

the application of RNR principles to ensure individuals who have been under corrections control are

grouped by risk of future criminal behavior. In doing so, it makes certain that both employment

services and recidivism-reduction interventions (including probation or parole supervision) are

tailored to individual needs.



26/76

17II. PROVEN AND PROMISING PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR HARD-TO-EMPLOY INDIVIDUALS

II. PROVEN AND PROMISING

PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING OUTCOMESFOR HARD-TO-EMPLOY INDIVIDUALS

SECTION II EXPLOREShow employment programming can lead to better outcomes for individuals with

criminal histories by attending to both their job-readiness and risk-related needs. There is signicant

overlap between the factors that make someone high risk and those that impact employability.

Antisocia l att itudes, bel iefs, peers, and personality patterns (what criminologists consider to be the

big four criminogenic risk factors) clearly affect how someone might perform in the workplace.

Individuals with these characteristics tend to have more negative attitudes about working, less stable

employment histories, and an unwillingness to take low-paying jobs.39

Employment programs are exceptionally well positioned to address risk factors because they already have

large numbers of adults with criminal histories coming through their doors and can provide a prosocial

environment that counters negative peer inuences and the amount of time individuals spend engaged

in antisocial activities. Redressing risk-related attitudes and behaviors not only helps keep individuals out

of prisons and jails, but also makes program participants more employable.40These mutually reinforcing

benets underscore the value in developing an approach for working with individuals with criminal

histories that integrates best practices from the workforce development and corrections elds.

This sect ion examines common challenges faced by hard-to-employ individuals, and proven and

promising practices for overcoming those challenges. The discussion focuses on two topics:

1. Employment program components to improve work outcomes (what to do):This

subsection outlines some promising components that are common in the workforce

development eld and attend to the needs of hard-to-employ individuals (including

individuals with criminal histories)*

2. Principles of service delivery to reduce recidivism (how to do it):This subsection

reviews ve service-delivery principles that have been shown to reduce recidivism and

can be applied to employment interventions. This discussion is only relevant to

individuals with criminal histories.

These program components and service-del ivery principles can be used to develop integrated service

packages (discussed more fully in Section III) that address both the risk levels identied through the

RNR assessment and the employment needs of individuals with criminal histories.

*The components are drawn f rom research on employment programs for hard-to-employ individuals broadly, rather than just those forindividuals with criminal h istories, because of the applicability of the ndings and the paucity of consistent research ndings regardingthis latter subgroup. Although a growing number of programs focus exclusively on individuals with criminal backgrounds, the majority ofprograms in th is eld have come out of welfare reform efforts and other broader workforce development goals.In addition to many expert advisors, section II was written in consultation with then-Public/Private Venture (P/PV) Senior Fellow SheilaMaguire. The content is meant to complement P/PVs publication, Supporting Second Chances: Employment Strategies for Reentry Programs.SheilaMaguire, Laura E. Johnson, and Angelique Jessup, Supporting Second Chances: Employment Strategies for Reentry Programs(Philadelphia: Private/Public Ventures, 2012).


27/76

18

It is important to note that the research on how to improve employment outcomes (especially retention

of unsubsidized jobs) for individuals with criminal histories is thin, due in large part to a lack of rigorous

evaluations of existing programs.41While many studies have been conducted, few adequately control

for participants self-selection into programs and the studies that do have a high-quality research design

have shown mixed results.42 One of the challenges with research on workforce development strategies

in general is that there is a tremendous amount of diversity in how programming and services are

delivered across the eld and there is little standardization in how agencies and nonprot organizations

operateor even measure their success. Research ndings are often heavily qualied, citing concerns

about drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of particular programs when implementation varies

so widely across programs and jurisdictions.*That said, research has revealed some promising practices

for addressing the needs of hard-to-employ individuals. Given the important role employment plays in

helping individuals reintegrate into the community, there is considerable value in helping the reentry and

workforce development elds adopt and test innovative strategies for improving employment outcomes

among their shared population.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FIELD

Hard to Employ:A term commonly used to describe individuals with chronic

unemployment. It is often associated with such attributes as low levels of education

(personal factors) or having a criminal record (external factors). In cases in which

external factors determine that individuals are hard to employ, it is important to

note that this classification does not indicate their job readiness.

Job Readiness:A determination based on personal characteristics that make an

individual more or less competitive in the labor market. These characteristics

generally include personal and family challenges, education and hard-skill deficits,

soft-skill deficits or related attitudinal issues, and other needs that may impair an

individuals ability to attain and retain employment (including what the RNR model

considers responsivity factors). It is common for less job-ready individuals to have

multiple, complex needs; although it is also possible for a single, severe problem

to prevent readiness.43Services to address these obstacles to job placement are

referred to as job-readiness or job-preparation services throughout this paper.

Job-Readiness Assessments:Typically a structured series of questions to help

collect consistent, useful information from potential program participants. Mostjob-readiness assessments commonly ask questions about a persons history of

employment; education and certification accomplishments; and attitude toward

work, general motivation, and resilience when disappointment occurs.

Source:Definitions for hard to employ and job readiness are based on the definitions used by the MDRC in

Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ, available at mdrc.org/project_12_8.html.


*It is important to bear in mind that programs tend to fall along a continuum of effectiveness, and outcomes are often dependent on awide range of factors.
http://www.mdrc.org/project_12_8.htmlhttp://www.mdrc.org/project_12_8.html


28/76

19

The Needs of Hard-to-Employ Individuals

The term hard to employ can be used to describe individuals who, owing to their personal issues

and external factors, have a particularly difcult time connecting to the labor market. Characteristicsassociated with people who are hard to employ include, for example, challenges with transportation and

housing, education and skill decits, and health or other needs that impair an individuals ability to attain

and retain employment (including responsivity factors). Table 1 lists some of the common characteristics

of hard-to-employ individuals.

TABLE1.EXAMPLESOFCOMMONCHARACTERISTICSOFHARD-TO-EMPLOYADULTS

Individuals with criminal records are often considered a subgroup of the hard-to-employ population

because, as mentioned earlier, having a criminal record can create signicant additional barriers to

employment, including statutory limitations on accessing particular professions,*employer reluctance

to hire individuals with criminal records, and logistical issues resulting from the terms of an

individuals release or supervision. People under probation or parole supervision may be required to

take drug tests, meet with supervision ofcers during work hours, or adhere to curfews that limit job

opportunities. Supervision compliance challenges are especially problematic because conditions ofrelease and supervision may require an individual to demonstrate efforts to seek or obtain employment.

Probation or parole may be revoked for repeatedly fail ing to meet these conditions (although such an

action would typically occur only if there were multiple violations of other conditions).

II. PROVEN AND PROMISING PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR HARD-TO-EMPLOY INDIVIDUALS

*See the d iscussion and resources on page 5.Conditions of release/supervision are often determined at sentencing or by parole boards, and may not always be changed easily byparole or probation ofcers to accommodate the needs of individuals participating in employment programming.

Responsible for child care

High-conict family situation

Transportation problems

Lack of stable housing

Legal barriers to employment

Lack of proper documentation

Sources: LaDonna Pavetti,Helping the Hard-to- Employ, in Welfare Reform and Beyond: The Future of the Safety Net, ed. Isabel V. Sawhill, et al., (Washington: Brookings Institution

Press, 2002), 135-142; Harry Holzer, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll, Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders, presented at Reentry Roundtable on The Employment

Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and Work, New York University, May 19-20, 2003 ; Krista Olson and LaDonna Pavetti, Personaland Family Challenges to the Successful Transition from Welfare to Work(Washington: Urban Institute, 1996).

Low education level

Lack of occupational skills

Limited work experience

Lack of soft job skills

Gaps in work experience

Mental illness

Substance use disorder

Learning disability

Lack of motivation

Negative attitudes about work

Poor physical health

Family, Logistical, and Legal Challenges Education and Skill Gaps Needs Related to Responsiveness

to Interventions


29/76

20

Although the presence of a criminal record (particularly for a felony offense) typical ly denes

individuals as hard to employ, there is still a broad range of job readiness within this group. The

distinction is important. Job readiness is determined by personal characteristics that make someone

more or less competitive in the labor market, including work experience and skill levels. In reality,

individuals with criminal histories commonly have these decits,44but it is also possible for someone

returning home after incarceration to be very capable of rejoining the workforce given past work

experience, education levels, and professional and technical skills.

Pre-employment Program Interventions: The Importance of Sequencing

The type and strength of job-readiness factors and prevalence of other barriers to employment will affect

which types of services an individual needs and when and how they should be provided. For instance,

individuals with responsivity issues such as severe mental illnesses, physical health problems, or substance

abuse disorders would not benet from employment services that relate to job readiness until those otherneeds are adequately addressed through treatment. It may be possible, however, for individuals with less

severe issues to receive treatment concurrently with employment programming. This is especially relevant to

individuals with criminal histories, who have much higher rates of behavioral and physical health problems

than the general population.45Family and logistical barriers can also inuence an individuals ability to

participate in employment programming and should be addressed as soon as possible. The workforce-

related recommendations in this paper are only applicable to individuals who are able to participate in and

benet from employment programming.


SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESSES

Some individuals with serious mental illnesses (SMI) may not be a good t for the type of integrated reentry and employment

programming described in this paper, as they will require more tailored or intensive services to address their behavioral health

needs. For these individuals, referrals to specialized supported employment programs can help ensure that they get both the

mental health and employment services they need.

Supported employment programs are designed to connect individuals with disabilities or SMI with the competitive labor

market, while ensuring that they receive the necessary professional support services to succeed. Supported employment

programs are closely integrated with these individuals mental health treatment plans. Research has demonstrated

that these programs can improve employment outcomes for the population with SMI.46Although these programs are not

widespread, they are becoming more common in communities across the country, and should be considered as a key

option when available. However, it is important to note that these kinds of programs are t ypically not designed to reduce

individuals risk of recidivism, and therefore may need to be supplemented by other cognitive behavioral interventions in a

comprehensive case plan. When these evidence-based employment programs are not available, existing programs may need

to address the responsivity issues among individuals with SMI.

Additional information on supported employment programs is available at store.samhsa.gov/product/Supported-Employment-

Evidence-Based-Practices-EBP-KIT/SMA08-4365.
http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Supported-Employment-Evidence-Based-Practices-EBP-KIT/SMA08-4365http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Supported-Employment-Evidence-Based-Practices-EBP-KIT/SMA08-4365http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Supported-Employment-Evidence-Based-Practices-EBP-KIT/SMA08-4365http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Supported-Employment-Evidence-Based-Practices-EBP-KIT/SMA08-4365


30/76

21

It is important that program administrators screen for

functional impairments and other problems that can

interfere with employment programming (this can be

done in coordination with local service providers and/or

corrections staff), and either treat these needs in-house

or through referrals to community service providers.

Some risk-reduction, soft- and technical-skill

development, or education interventions may

also be required before connecting individuals

to an employment program or jobalthough

in most circumstances, these services can be

provided simultaneously with job-readiness and

placement services.47Deeply entrenched criminal

think ing that makes individuals unresponsive to

employment programming will likely need to be

addressed with cognitive behavioral interventions

before those individuals are able to succeed in

programming or in a work setting. However,

many higher-risk individuals with less deeply

entrenched criminal thinking wil l benet from

employment programming at the same time as

cognitive behavioral interventions, particularly

because the development of soft skil ls that make

someone more employable (nontechnical ski lls and att itudes, such as professionalism, the ability

to collaborate, and communication and problem-solving abil ities)48overlap with risk-reduction

efforts aimed at antisocial attitudes and behaviors. Integrated risk-reduction and soft-skills training

programs can be particularly effective. In contrast, education and technical skill decits typically do

not preclude an individual from participating in employment programs or connecting with the labor

market unless they rise to the level of functional illiteracy*and/or lack a particular skill set required

for the position. When possible, these decits should be addressed at the same t ime an individual is

employed to help with rapid attachment to a job or to provide career advancement.

Employment Program Components to Improve Work Outcomes (What to Do)

There are many programs that have been used over the past several decades in the workforce

development eld to help hard-to-employ individuals, including those with criminal histories. The

discussion that follows highlights some of the common components of those programs that have

been the subject of research, although this is far from an exhaustive list. Employment programs that

incorporate these different components generally are trying to achieve two broad goals:

II. PROVEN AND PROMISING PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR HARD-TO-EMPLOY INDIVIDUALS

FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS DISINCENTIVESFOR EMPLOYMENT

Another common characteristic of hard-to-employ individuals with

criminal histories is their high levels of nancial obligation and

debt with poor prospects of repayment upon release from prison.49

Government ofcials can often garnish a signicant portion of

an individuals wages to repay these debts. For instance, child

support enforcem

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	donaldjennings
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Final.reentry and Employment.pp

Documents